I wonder if some of our difficulty as instructors in designing effective application exercises in a theory course such as this, is that it requires us to make explicit the learning which has become implicit to us over time. It forces us to make connections which now feel intuitive from the perspective of immersion in a particular field of study / practice. Liz Winter, Ph.D., LSW Academic Coordinator and Clinical Assistant Professor Child Welfare Education for Leadership Program School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh 2327 Cathedral of Learning Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: 412-648-2371 Fax: 412-624-1159 NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by person or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anderson, Nadia [ARCH] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:09 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Backward Design in a Theory Class? Ron, Your latest message came through as I was sending my last response. Just wanted to say that my situation is very similar - there isn't a clear direct translation from the ideas in the theory to a specific way of designing. I'm hoping to help my students see, through case studies, how theory can manifest in different ways and affect how we look at different situations. It isn't easy for me - I really have to spend time looking at examples and trying to define how the theory manifests itself, which means sometimes ambiguous situations that students hate. However, this is also one of the things they need to learn - ambiguity is par for the course in real life! Nadia On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Carson, Ron wrote: The theory in question is really a singular theory on human occupation. And this is where I'm stuck. Because, while theory of human occupation is critical to occupational therapy, the theory is not really applied theory. It's more foundational theory/knowledge. I know this theory is important to OT's practice, I'm not sure how the theory is expressed in clinical decision making. Thanks for your continuing help... ________________________________ From: Sibley, James Edward [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:49 AM To: Carson, Ron Cc: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Backward Design in a Theory Class? Hi Ron I would get them into the messy problems of the discipline as quick as possible You might reinforce, repeat, reiterate theory....even lecture on it sometimes...and focus on theory on the assessments If the students are solving problems while they build their knowledge structures....there is more chance the they will organize their knowledge in ways that support application/problem-solving more than rote recall There is also a great motivational benefit to have them working with disciplinary problems early The question that comes to my mind is....what theory would best describe what we are seeing in this situation...why is this theory useful to understand this situation....knowing that this theory might apply to this situation > what would you expect next....what would you do next to be consistent with the guidance provided by the theory My two cents -- Jim Sibley Director Centre for Instructional Support Faculty of Applied Science University of British Columbia 2205-6250 Applied Science Lane Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z4 Phone 604.822.9241 Fax 604.822.7006 Email: [log in to unmask]<https://legacy.floridahospital.org/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> Check out http://<http://cis.apsc.ubc.ca/>www.teambasedlearning.org<http://www.teambasedlearning.org> (c) Copyright 2012, Jim Sibley, All rights reserved The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments (collectively "message") is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient (or recipients) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, and delete the meesage. From: "Carson, Ron" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Reply-To: "Carson, Ron" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:21:09 -0400 To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Backward Design in a Theory Class? I'm attempting to "convert" a theory class into TBL but I'm having trouble answering the question, "What are students who really understand the material doing that shows they get it?" The class is a theory class on human occupation (occupation = activity people do to take care of themselves, be productive and have fun). It's the student's first trimester of a 7 trimester occupational therapy program. The problem is that this is foundational knowledge and I'm sure what students will actually DO with the information. The will certainly think differently but as far as actually doing something with the knowledge, I'm just not sure. Any suggestions? Thanks, -- Ron Carson MHS, OT Assistant Professor Adventist University of Health Sciences 671 Winyah Dr Orlando, FL 32803 407.303.9182